GhostLetter
-
Posts
23 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GhostLetter
-
-
1 hour ago, Fader said:
ah yeah, the numbers are wrong on the rounds. Here we are :
Round 1 - first to 10 (best of 19)
Round 2 - first to 11 (best of 21)
Quarter Finals - first to 16 (best of 31)
Semi-Finals - first to 17 (best of 33)
Final - first to 18 (best of 35)And, I think, must be won by two clear legs? (With a single-leg tie-break after a certain amount of extra legs?)
Or have they got rid of that format? I seem to remember they dropped that at some point, but I’m not sure if that was a temporary, Covid-related reason, or a permanent decision?
-
6 hours ago, Fader said:
This gets underway Saturday through to the 24th.
Tends to be a player who has consistency to win this, as it's a "first to 10 legs" round 1 format, "First to 11" round 2 and then into a best of 32 legs, 34 and then 37 in the final.
We've seen MVG, Taylor, Anderson, Cross, Van Den Bergh and Wright win this in the last 6 renewals and that shows the quality level of the winner. Very much like a "Masters" of Darts.
I think Peter Wright will win this one. He has had a pretty rubbish year but when you look at the last couple of Players Championships, you will see him hitting 100+ averages regularly and that's a good sign, here. I reckon he comes into this in a better position than the likes of MVG, Price or Clayton. Will be interesting to see how Smith goes and Van Den Bergh always goes well here. However, his form hasn't been that solid over the last 12 months.
My 2nd "serious" selection is Luke Humphries. He has come into his own in the past 3 months and has won a multitude of PDC events. He needs to hit the ground running here with a big TV win. Both single bets as I don't think the winner will come from the bottom half.
Finally, to add abit of typical high priced options for you, I will give you 1 half decent mid-range shout and that's Danny Noppert. He seems to get better with every event on the TV stage and looks a bit of value at 33s. The other 2 are both 100+/1 shots who are both on fire at the Players Championships. Will they bottle it on the big stage? probably. Are they 100+/1 shots? Nope. Adrian Lewis and Andrew Gilding.
3pts Wright to win World Matchplay 8/1 bet365
2pts Humphries to win World Matchplay 12/1 betfred
------------------------------------------------------------------
1pt e/w Noppert to win World Matchplay 33/1 betfred
0.5pts e/w Lewis to win World Matchplay 100/1 bet365
0.5pts e/w Gilding to win World Matchplay 125/1 betvictorI’m not sure you’ve described the format correctly at all?! It seems a bit all over the place, if that’s the format! Why are some rounds ‘best of’ and some rounds ‘first to’? Also, why are some rounds ‘best of’ an even number, and some rounds ‘best of’ an odd number?
-
1 hour ago, harry_rag said:
Ok, evidence is mounting that I might not be entirely correct!
Here's Hills score/win doubles on the Germany/Spain game which is priced 15/8 and 11/8 with the draw at 21/10. Prices based on 21/10 Popp scoring with the simple multiplied double odds in brackets.
Germany 4.8 (8.97) (A bit better than but much closer to the 4.47 you'd get using the Germany +1 price)
Draw 13 (9.61)
Spain 10 (7.36)
Now I totally get the draw and Spain prices being better. If Germany score the game can no longer finish 0-0 and Spain can no longer win 1-0. Some of the the outcomes that were factored into the draw and Spain prices have become impossible. But I'm still struggling a little with the extent to which the Germany price should be less than the multiplied odds. I get that Germany scoring will alter the odds in play but Germany have to score to win so it's already factored into the price. Put it this way; the odds for Spain to win and Germany to score are bigger than the odds for Spain to win. The odds for Germany to win and Germany to score are exactly the same as the odds for Germany to win (because it is impossible for them to win but not score)
I'll be brushing up on my conditional probability.
I’m a bit lost as to what you’re still confused at here. I think you may be over-complicating things in your calculations.
It’s simply the odds of that player scoring, multiplied by the odds of Germany winning GIVEN THAT WE KNOW GERMANY SCORE AT LEAST ONE. Effectively, we can use the Germany (+1) odds - I think - or if you want to make it more complicated, the chances of Germany winning, out of all possible results where Germany score at least one. That should boil down to roughly the same thing, as far as I can see.
When I did the calculations on Bet365, it worked out almost spot on - player to score, multiplied by Germany (+1) odds.
-
51 minutes ago, Torque said:
In regards to the first paragraph I can see what you mean but then as you said some things are related such that if one part of a prop looks value there's every chance another part is as well as a result, although I take your overall point and agree with it. From a variance perspective it would be better to take separate bets if you thought a couple of legs in a prop were worth betting on.
For the second part of what you say, again you're correct. Having said that though, props and multiples have the potential to offer exponential value if they're priced wrong which is something that can happen even if rarely. It's a door that swings both ways - negative value on each leg of a treble amplifies the negative value, but positive value on each leg amplifies the positive value, albeit at the expense of a lower probability of success.
As for your last point, I agree as I mentioned before. If it's promoted by the books then that's because they want you to bet on it and as they're not in the business of charity it's fair to say that they consider these bets to be to their advantage.
Lastly, and in response to your final remark about my competency, it's clear that you also know a thing or two about this subject and so it's interesting to read what you post. I only wish what you posted was a little more friendly. I think you'll do well to find anyone who reads what you post who wouldn't say that you come across as incredibly arrogant and patronising. There's just no need for it and it makes no sense to me.
I’m not sure how to say things differently, as it’s not my intention to come across that way! I said to both you and harry_rag that I admired your gambling knowledge, to show that it wasn’t a personal attack in any way.
There’s very little on this forum that I am knowledgeable about, but when I see someone writing something that I disagree with, especially if I know it to be mathematically impossible, then I will stand up for what I think is correct and stick to my beliefs!
-
1 hour ago, harry_rag said:
What would be your best take on where these specific maths are wrong then? If England win there are only 2 possible outcomes relating to Smith scoring or not and their true odds have to add up to the same probability as the England win. I've provided my specific numbers and why I think they're right. Show your sums for this specific scenario in the hope it may finally get it through to my thick head!
It's just struck me that this scenario seems to support my contention more than yours. Let's imagine our England win = 3 and Kane = 3 scenario and throw in England +1 is 1.5 (fair based on Germany's odds tonight v Spain). My contention is that the true odds for England win/Kane goal is 9 whereas yours is that it would be more like 4.5. Kane scores in the first minute and England's win odds are cut to roughly 1.5 (i.e. they've got a real +1 now). I'm free to stick my Kane winnings on an England win at 1.5 which would pay me as a 4.5 double. You're suggesting the fair odds pre match (when we don't know whether Kane scores or not) are the same as they would be after Kane has actually scored. Obviously Kane scoring increases the chance of an England win but only if he does. I think you're putting too much emphasis on the 2/1 chance of him scoring in this example rather than the 1/2 chance of him not scoring.
Your maths is wrong because you are still calculating them as independent events, rather than dependent!
In your example, you said that Smith fails to score in 2 matches out of 3, (overall). There is no way that someone who fails to score in 2 out of 3 matches overall also fails to score in 2 out of 3 matches when their team wins. That doesn’t make sense. For a start, you’ve just removed all matches when the team didn’t score at all, from the equation. We are now looking at a completely different set of probabilities - those related to England wins only - and that significantly decreases the chances/increases the odds of Smith failing to score.
In my Harry Kane statistics - taken from his actual England career - he scores in 47% of matches and fails to score in 53%. However, in matches where England win, he scores in 62% of matches and fails to score in 38%. So that’s the significant jump I was talking about. You wouldn’t get the same anytime scorer odds for matches where England win, that you would for England matches as a whole. Two different sets of probabilities, equates to two different sets of odds.
You could just as easily flip it the other way. In Harry Kane’s England career, they have won 62% of matches he has appeared in. However, that figure jumps to 82%, for matches he scores in. These events are clearly and indisputably linked.
I’m struggling to follow what you’re asking, or where the confusion lies, in your second example. Yes, the odds would be around 4.5 for the double, the same as the odds for Kane, doubled with England (+1). And yes, that would be the same effect as having the single bet on the goalscorer, that bet coming in within the first minute and then reinvesting that on an England win.
I think I’ve thought of a different way to solve/explain this. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what you seemed to be suggesting to Torque yesterday, was that the bookies had just ‘removed’ some potential value from these prop. bets - the value had effectively vanished into thin air, or into the bookies’ back pockets, more likely! If you look at the Germany vs. Spain game tonight. Again, Lea Schuller to score first is 11/2. The match odds are Germany, 9/5; draw, 12/5; and Spain, 29/20. You were saying that these odds should be combined, if you were trying to form a double. However, if we look at the double odds, for Schiller to score first and each of the three potential outcomes, it’s 9/1 Germany; 25/1 draw; and 40/1 Spain. Those aren’t the calculations you suggest. Germany are much shorter than you suggested they should be, but draw and Spain are both now much longer. That is because, as I suggested, the Schiller first goalscorer odds have been combined with the Germany (+1) odds, of Germany, 8/15; draw, 3/1; and Spain 4/1.
Hopefully that makes more sense, to think of it from that point of view. If Spain are 29/20 to win the match, surely you can see that those odds have to be significantly higher, for a match when a Germany player scores first? If you still disagree, then you’re about to become very rich. If you think the bookies have removed a lot of value from the player to score and their team to win market, then I’m bringing you great news - by your definition, all that value now lies on the other side, on a player to score, and their team to draw or lose!
-
1 hour ago, Torque said:
I'm glad I seem knowledgeable - that's a relief. I'm not a big fan of prop bets and very rarely place them. Mathematically I'm sure they don't offer value - if they did it's unlikely they'd be promoted by the books - but betting isn't entirely about Maths. It's imprecise - mistakes get made. Prices are usually based on thousands of previous iterations of an event or a similar event, but none of those events can definitively approximate the event to come.
The chances of the bookies having got all the parts of the prop bet wrong are surely tiny though? You’d be better isolating which specific part of the prop bet you think is value and focusing on that.
If anything, due to the profit margins that bookies build into their odds, the more parts you add to a prop bet, the more you are allowing the bookies to offset/cancel out any part of the prop bet they may have got wrong.
I think it’s a lazy market, aimed at part-time gamblers. And from what I’ve seen here, you’re far better than that!
-
1 hour ago, harry_rag said:
Ok, let's try this although I feel it's as likely to flounder on my ability to articulate what I mean as for what I mean to be wrong!
My hypothesis is that the true odds for a team to win and one of their named players to score is the true odds for each event multiplied together, as opposed to it being a genuine "related contingency" where the true odds are different to that calculation.
Let's take the bet "England to win and Smith to score" where both components have true odds of 2/1. I'm not disputing the extent to which the events are related during and after the game, just how you calculate the probability before the event. Game kicks off and Smith scores, one leg is in and the odds for the remaining leg shorten. England score and the odds for that leg shorten though the odds for Smith to score will be largely unaffected (and drift with time). Opponents score and the odds for the win drift, pushing out the odds for our bet.
If you ignore (for now, bear with me) the fact that we are specifying the result and a named scorer our bet boils down to the proposition that England will win and score at least one goal. The odds for that outcome are obviously not the product of England to win and England to score a goal, it's just the odds for England to win as they can't do so without scoring a goal. Someone has to score for the bet to land and each players' odds are simply whatever they are, 2/1 in the case of Smith. Smith to score first and England to win is different as the proposition of England to win and to score first will have different odds to simply England to win.
I contend that the specific maths are simply as follows. It doesn't matter who the named scorer is or what their price is, the principle is the same.
England to win and Smith to score = 3 x 3 = 9
England to win and Smith not to score = 3 x 1.5 = 4.5
If you dutch those 2 outcomes you get the win odds of 3. The only way the first can be shorter than 9 is if you think the second should be longer than 4.5 (for every named player). That England will score is factored as a given into the win price. Trying to name a scorer as well inflates the odds by whatever the probability for that scorer is, whether it's the 1.5 super striker, the 4.0 midfielder or the 21 defender. If England score their odds will contract to the same extent regardless of who has scored the goal.
I've got a feeling that this will leave you unconvinced in which case I can only ask what would be your take on where my calculation is wrong?
On the subject of the bookies offering less than the multiplied out odds, these markets are catnip for mug punters; I contend that it's perfectly feasible that the bookies would tack a bit more margin on to maximise profit and protect themselves from shrewder punters who picked them off where they'd got the underlying prices wrong.
Where you are wrong is your lack of understanding of the difference between independent and dependent events, in terms of probability. Or, your lack of understanding of what counts as a related contingency, in terms of gambling.
First, in terms of probabilities - if you wanted to work out the combined probability of there being rainfall at the moment when you step outside in the morning AND of you tossing a single, fair coin, and it landing on heads, before you leave, then you’d simply multiply the probabilities of those two INDEPENDENT events together. On dry days, you would expect to land 50% heads and 50% tails and on wet days you would also expect 50% heads and 50% tails. That is how independent events work. One event is not changing the distribution of the other. There is no grouping or lack of grouping between two outcomes - such as wet and heads, or dry and tails.
However, if you wanted to calculate the probability of there being rainfall the moment you step outside AND of you standing in a puddle on the way to work, then those events are clearly related, so we are looking at DEPENDENT probabilities. If you stand in a puddle on 5% of days, and it is raining on 20% of days, you don’t multiply these dependent events together and say, the chances of both happening on the same day are 1%. Hopefully you can see that doesn’t make sense? That would mean that the other 4 out of 5 times you stand in a puddle would be on dry days.
So, you would be 4 times more likely to stand in a puddle on a dry day, than a wet day! Again, I hope you can see the logical fallacy there? In this case, there will clearly be a grouping between wet days and the days you stand in a puddle. And also the opposite grouping - of dry days and the days when you don’t stand in a puddle.
So, that means we need a different formula, for calculating the combined probabilities of dependent events. The calculation for finding the chances of two dependent events both happening is P(A) x P(B|A). That is the probability of event A happening, multiplied by the probability of event B happening GIVEN THAT WE KNOW A HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.
So, that’s what I was saying earlier, in my Germany and Spain example. If you’re betting on a player to score, when you then look to combine that bet, with another outcome in the same match, you don’t multiply by that second event’s original probability, you multiply by its probability given that the first thing has occurred. Which, if you were betting for a team to win the match, as in the example we used, would mean you are multiplying by the odds for that team to win, with a one-goal head start, (+1 on the handicap betting).
If you don’t understand the explanation in terms of probabilities, I thought the Harry Kane example and statistics I gave earlier, showed it quite nicely in terms of gambling and related contingencies. Those weren’t numbers I made up, those were the actual stats. That wasn’t a biased pick by me, that was the first player that came to mind. We could use Lukaku or Lewandowski and look at their international goals, or look at any player’s club goals - it would take much longer to gather all the statistics - and we’d always see the same pattern. Whatever percentage of matches a player scores in overall, over a reasonable enough sample size, that will ALWAYS be skewed towards a higher percentage of matches scored in when the team wins, to a lower percentage when the team draws, to an even lower percentage when the team loses. Those events are clearly related. How could they not be? It is ludicrous to say that if a player scores, their team’s chances of winning/drawing/losing the match are still the same as in matches when that player doesn’t score. That’s what you are claiming here, with your lack of understanding of independent events and dependent events.
I genuinely am baffled that we are wasting our time having this debate. If you still think the bookies have their odds so wrong on this, then you have just unlocked a huge gold mine, and are about to become very rich. And probably also very famous, as you have just changed some of the most basic theories of statistics!
We can drill down into this further if we need to, but I’m hoping at some point soon the penny will drop and you will see where you have been going wrong with this?!
-
11 minutes ago, harry_rag said: I’d propose a wager but there’s too much risk that we’ll fail to reach agreement!
All I’ll say is that we’ve probably both fallen into the same trap of assuming dependent events are also “related contingencies” (where the true odds of both things happening are not the product of the individual odds) when it’s possible for them to be the former but not the latter.
I’m more than happy to have a wager. We only have to check the odds that bookies offer, to see that I’m correct!
I think you don’t understand - or have temporarily got muddled - as to what a related contingency is.
I’ll use Harry Kane playing for England as an example. Harry Kane has scored in 47% of his appearances for England. From your argument, this would mean we would also expect him to score in 47% of England wins, 47% of England draws and 47% of England defeats, across the matches he has appeared in.
OBVIOUSLY, that is ludicrous. He is far more likely to have scored in matches England have won, and vice versa, England are far more likely to have won in matches he has scored in. And so the stats show: In England wins, he has scored 62% of the time. In draws, he has only scored 24% of the time, and in defeats that figure drops to 18%.
The chances of ‘Harry Kane scoring’ and ‘England winning’ are clearly linked to each other and therefore group together more than if they were independent events. That’s why the bookies don’t give you the odds of multiplying the two separate bets together.
If your ‘Harry Kane to score’ bet is a winner, you now effectively have a one-goal head start on your other bet, ‘England to win.’ Therefore, presumably the actual combined odds for ‘Harry Kane to score’ and ‘England to win’ would be the odds of Harry Kane to score, multiplied by the odds of England (+1) on the handicap betting.
I’ve just checked this now, for the Germany vs. Spain match this evening. Bet365 have Germany to win at 15/8 and Lea Schuller to score first at 11/2. If you combine those odds (as if they were independent events/unrelated bets), by multiplying the odds, you would get close to 18/1. However, the odds offered for the ‘Wincast’, for Schuller to score first and Germany to win, are 9/1 - that is the same odds as if you combine Schuller to score first at 11/2, and Germany (+1) at 8/15. (Schuller scoring first gives your other bet a one goal head start.)
I hope that makes sense? Out of all the people on the forum, you would have been the last person I expected to be explaining odds and statistics to. I worry someone has hacked your account - or your brain!
-
23 minutes ago, harry_rag said:
You flatter me, I just think I look more at the logic behind the bets than most but there are those with a far deeper understanding of statistical probability etc. To be fair I’ve surprised myself here in terms of changing longheld preconceptions but, having slept on it, I still think I’m right.
I’ll be back later to try and convince you (or eat humble pie).
I can’t wait to hear this.....
I’m not sure where your logic has gone wrong, but I’m interested to see!
I studied statistics at university, so maybe I would fall into that category you mentioned, of having a far deeper understanding of statistical probability?! I don’t claim to be an expert, and much of statistics is beyond me, but I think what we are debating/discussing here are fairly basic statistical concepts.
-
7 hours ago, harry_rag said:
@GhostLetter Ooh I love a maths puzzle, been thinking about this too long given the late hour! I was going to say that team to win and player to score was a better example of related contingency but I’ve ended up thinking the following is true:
The true odds for team A to win and their striker to score are simply the true odds of the two outcomes multiplied together, they are not related in a way that makes them any less than that. So if England are 2/1 to win and White 2/1 to score the odds for both to happen are 8/1.
I’ll recheck my maths after I’ve had my weetabix as that goes against my long held assumptions but I think it’s true!
From what I have seen, you are the most knowledgeable gambler on this site. I am therefore very surprised at what I am reading from you here!
England to win and White to score are obviously very much related! If White scores, England are more likely to win. If England win, it is more likely that White has scored. One outcome happening vastly increases the chances of the other also happening. Therefore, if you combined them both - at the 2/1 odds for each that you used as an example - you certainly wouldn’t get 8/1. As I said previously, that is a perfect example of a related contingency.
You can check/confirm that on most bookies’ websites. Find an anytime/first goal scorer bet. Find the odds of their team to win. Then find the bet that combines them - is it called ‘wincast’ or something like that? - and the odds will be much less than simply multiplying the separate bets together. That’s not down to the bookies knocking a sneaky bit of value off - that’s down to it being a related contingency.
In statistical terms, these are dependent events, rather than independent events, so the calculation is not as simple as multiplying together the chances of each separate event. That is the calculation for independent events.
-
Torque - looking at the Wimbledon Singles Finals that took place over the weekend, and now today’s Euro 2022 matches, you seem to be a bit obsessed with these prop. bet trebles at the moment. I’d totally agree with harry_rag and say that I can’t see any value in them whatsoever. You seem knowledgeable when it comes to sports and betting, but everything about these bets screams that they’re aimed at mug punters. I don’t understand why you’d go anywhere near them. They seem very random and over-complicated. I think you should look for simpler bets, rather than bets on three different things to all happen, in the same match. Feel free to prove me wrong in the long run, but none of your ten prop. bet trebles I have seen over the past few days have struck me as value.
Having said that, harry_rag, I think your calculations in simply combining the individual odds weren’t correct on this occasion. There were definitely related contingencies involved, which would therefore reduce the odds. If a certain player/certain players have a shot/shots on target, then obviously their team are more likely to score and also more likely to lead at half time or win the match. Some of the bets there are perfect examples of related contingencies. So, the odds aren’t necessarily much different to the individual odds - rather that the bets are a bit too complex and unlikely to come in.
-
34 minutes ago, Fader said:
Lewis each way Winner 100/1. 25/1 winner. I didn't have a bet today so obviously one of yesterday's bets will win
I would like to follow these bets, mainly for a bit of interest, but also because you seem to do quite well on them! I don’t think I have access to a Paddy Power account. Are they the only company that offers 4 places on these, or are there other places that do too? I’d imagine if it was two places paid instead of four, any potential value would be gone.
Also, I don’t really understand how each-way payouts work. I see you have said that yesterday’s bet was a 100/1 bet and a 25/1 winner. I know those odds sound impressive, but if we add up all your bets yesterday, does that make 11 points staked and 13 points returned? Or am I calculating that incorrectly?
Thanks
-
1 hour ago, Torque said:
1. Where I see prices I like, I play as long as playing doesn't overstretch my exposure.
2. I acknowledged the trend, but that's all it is - a trend. Trends are not a guarantee something will happen.
3. If I had a pound for every time I heard a former player or pundit predict something - even en masse - and it didn't happen, I'd have a great many pounds.
4. I take your point about a straight match being a simpler bet, but I've had some success by bolting on props in the past which obviously boost the price.
5... and this obviously isn't in reply to you, but why are you so demonstrative. You could have said all of the above without being so confrontational.
I didn’t mean to be confrontational. I hoped that by breaking my post down into the separate points I was trying to make, that it would avoid coming across as confrontational or aggressive! I may have missed the mark with that objective though.
- Torque and CzechPunter
-
2
-
25 minutes ago, Torque said:
On the one hand I agree with this rationale, but on the other I wonder if this year will buck the trend of routine wins. I say that because of the contrast in styles that will be on show, where I can imagine an ebb and flow where power and guile take turns for superiority as the match unfolds.
The great intangible of course is how each player will cope with the pressure of arguably the biggest match in tennis and I think they'll both struggle at times. My feeling is that Jabeur deserves to be the favourite, because she has more tools in her box. If her serve breaks down there are other facets of her game that can prop it up, whereas for Rybakina if she doesn't serve well it's very difficult to see her winning because her game is so dependent on it and it often sets the tone for the rest of her play.
With all of the above in mind, I'm taking a boost at 365 about Jabeur winning a long match whilst hitting at least three aces. Rybakina is the better server but Jabeur's not too shabby from the service line and should get a few aces of her own, particularly if the match goes long. I'm also taking another boost on 365 based on Jabeur winning and being able to get a few breaks of serve. As strong as Rybakina is, Jabeur is a fine returner and that's before the possibility that Rybakina doesn't serve as well as she can.
EDIT: There's a boost on Betfair that's similar to the other bets but with lower odds and so a better chance of winning. I'll have some of that as well and start crossing my fingers as all my eggs are in the Jabeur basket.
10pts Ons Jabeur breaks serve first, wins the first set and wins the match @ 2.25
10pts 3+ Aces in the Match for Ons Jabeur, Ons Jabeur will win the Match and Over 22.5 Games in the Match @ 5.50
10pts Ons Jabeur to win Set 1 6-3 or 6-4, Ons Jabeur Over 3.5 Breaks of Serve in the Match and Ons Jabeur will win the Match @ 7.50
I’m pretty baffled by these bets, for any number of reasons.....
1. I think you said your outright bets already mean you would much prefer Jabeur to win than Rybakina? I don’t see what reason there is to add to that, on what is by all accounts a very tough match to call?
2. As I mentioned previously, Women’s Wimbledon Finals don’t tend to go long. A couple of your bets are going against that trend. Not a smart move.
3. All your bets include Jabeur to win the match. I don’t see why you are so confident of that outcome. I’m surprised she’s the favourite. I’m watching the match on the BBC and they’ve had a plethora of former Grand Slam champions as pundits, all of whom seem to be leaning towards Rybakina. I haven’t had a bet myself since Medvedev lost to Nadal in Australia, but it’s taken all my willpower and more to not break that run, and have a big bet on 2-0 Rybakina today.
4. Your bets are all overly-complicated. The common thread in all of them is Jabeur to win. If that’s what you think, then just be bold and go big on that. Don’t over-complicate it and turn a good prediction into a losing bet!
-
6 hours ago, CzechPunter said:
Tough for me to crack the women's finals. Rybakina has the better form and Jabeur has been struggling recently, but do you trust Rybakina's nerves?
I think the main thing to say is that a huge majority of recent Women’s Wimbledon Finals are two-set affairs - 12 out of the last 14 finals in fact. If anyone is struggling to pick a side in this match, then a bet on it being a two-set match is excellent value, at around 8/15 - especially with it being two players who have been nowhere near this stage of a Grand Slam before, as one of them could easily crack under the pressure.
If you do have a potential winner in mind, then much better to take them to win 2-0, as that is the most likely scoreline here. If pushed, I fancy 2-0 Rybakina, at very tasty odds of 5/2.
-
3 hours ago, liquidglass said:
Everything about gambling in terms of what will happen during a match is delibrate and has all been comprehensively factored into the odds before the match. We see this when "market moves" transitions into "market forces". Every visual occurence in real time happens the way it does because it can not possibly have happened any other way. In other words everything happens deliberately to line up with an outcome that most certainly precedes the match before the first ball is struck. So I deem it complete rubbish for anyone to suggest that what a player did or did not do affected the outcome. The outcome is an invariable and is independent of whatever is tagged to it. I know that sounds confusingly deep. However it is a fact. It is the main reason why i do not entertain post-game explanations. This indulgence is brutal making no room for second best. You either get it right or wrong. It is that simple. Bookies do not entertain explanations and certainly do not pay out on nearly. I can defend this school of thought all day which is evidence based.
I don’t have a clue what this is referring to, let alone understand it!
-
20 minutes ago, Torque said:
I'll start by saying I have no idea how Nadal won. He had no right to win that match. In the end he won through sheer force of will and mental strength and hopefully he's able to recover physically because he deserves to play the next round after a performance like that. I have to say I don't like his chances, especially after he mentioned his side issue in the on-court interview and if he is somehow able to play it's difficult to imagine he'll be at 100% which means Kyrgios will never have a better chance of making a Slam final. That's good news for my bets on Kyrgios in the outright market, although I don't see anyone but Djokovic winning the title now.
Nadal winning was the final piece of the treble jigsaw and the acca moves on to tomorrow, with Djokovic and Jabeur still to play. Halep getting through means there's a good chance I'll be able to record a smaller loss on the Women's side as I also have a bet on Jabeur and a small stake on Rybakina, so it was a good day overall.
I think that’s the story of the men’s Grand Slams so far in 2022, isn’t it? Nadal winning matches that he has no right to win.
I’m a bit fed up of it to be honest. I don’t feel like he wins by playing better tennis - he just wins through mental strength and turning the match into an endurance test. Today’s was a bit silly as well - his team were apparently signalling for him to retire from the match, and he decides to go against them and keep going. For what? Surely he knows that even if he somehow wins the match today, he can’t go any further in the tournament, if he’s injured?
I’m kind of torn - on the one hand it’s admirable, to want to finish every match and never pull out injured. On the other hand, it’s taking Taylor Fritz’s place away, if Nadal is too injured to do anything in the semi-final. That seems a bit unfair to me.
-
On 6/26/2022 at 1:36 PM, harry_rag said:
12 points on France to win at 6/1 with Uni
Had a look at the teams in terms of odds, form, Fifa rankings, draw etc. and arrived at the conclusion that France were a reasonable bet at the price.
Not an earth-shattering conclusion to say that I think the winner will come from the front 6 in the betting. There are only 16 teams in in it and those 6 are all at single figure odds with Norway 20/1 next.
England at 9/2 not the worst bet given current form and the fact that they're hosts but they're looking at Spain or Germany in the QF and I think the price is fair at best.
Spain and Germany are in the obligatory "Group of Death" and I think the former are false favourites at less than 4/1. Good as they are, and as strong as the domestic game is now, I think the market has overrated them slightly. Germany not the force of old but still to be respected. I wouldn't back them at 8/1 though given the draw.
Holland and Sweden should get out of group C easily enough but don't appeal at the prices.
France have the easiest looking group to me (in with the 8th, 10th and 11th ranked teams in the competition). Recent form comparable to England. Just stood out enough to me at a price that was clear best and may well be trimmed. (Still 6 for now on the exchange.)
Spain for me.
Deserved favourites and significantly better odds than I was expecting.
-
This is farcical. Where does it end?
-
54 minutes ago, waggy said:
BMW Golf 3 ball 12.10
£160 Billy Horschel @13/8 (v Fox, Pieters)
This thread is like Groundhog Day....
Anyway, £26,000 down and counting. (Plus some incorrectly recorded golf winnings, making the total even worse.)
-
14 hours ago, waggy said:
Thanks Gooner. The loss of £20 a week was in my mind sustainable and this was funded for a ten year period. As I've lost over half of the total in six months things will naturally have to change. This run of losses has been poor and to be frank very embarrassing. A new approach will be needed, and implemented, to try and make this a ten year thread instead of a one year one. I've been betting for over half a century and luckily it has caused no problems. Hopefully this thread will recover in time and be profitable in the long run. Time will tell.
Your comment is ridiculous - much like the rest of this thread.
Since resuming here in March, you have lost an average of almost £350 per week. To try and use creative accounting, and describe that as ‘a sustainable amount of £20 per week, if you spread the figure over the next five years’, is living in a fantasy world, and an insult to the intelligence of most of the people on this forum.
-
I normally judge potential World Cup or European Championship winners using a process of elimination. This looks like being a fairly weak World Cup, as I can’t see any outstanding teams at the moment - we could be in for another 2002.
For me, it will be Germany or Spain who lift the trophy.
2022 ONWARDS
in Glory Hunters
Posted
That was going to be my exact question too! What is the plan?
That most recent bet takes waggy to over £27,000 down on their threads on the Glory Hunters section of the website - and very close to £28,000 down. (I think perhaps a bit more, as there is some suspicion about incorrectly recorded results too.)
Also, that latest bet moves waggy’s losses to over £50 per day, across the 120 days since they resumed this thread in March. That’s some going!
These are extremely concerning statistics, and I’d love it if waggy would spend some time coming up with some justifications and solutions - rather than wasting their time on losing more and more money, on the same select few markets every week.